HR001119S0040.pdf

HR001119S0040

Broad Agency Announcement

Manta Ray

DARPA TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE

June 4, 2019

Contents

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

A. Program Background and Overview B. Program Description

II. Award Information A. General Award Information B. Fundamental Research

III. Eligibility Information A. Eligible Applicants B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest C. Cost Sharing/Matching

IV. Application and Submission Information A. Address to Request Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission

V. Application Review Information A. Evaluation Criteria B. Review of Proposals

VI. Award Administration Information A. Selection Notices and Notifications B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements C. Reporting D. Electronic Systems

VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

A. Collaborative Efforts/Teaming

PART I: OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Federal Agency Name – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO)

Funding Opportunity Title – Manta Ray Announcement Type – Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity Number – HR001119S0040 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) – Not applicable Dates o Proposer’s Day - May 13, 2019 o Posting Date – June 4, 2019 o Questions Due Date and Time – June 18, 2019 11:59 PM (midnight) Eastern Time o Abstract Due Date and Time – June 27, 2019 4 PM Eastern Time o Proposal Due Date and Time – August 15, 2019 4 PM Eastern Time

Concise description of the funding opportunity – DARPA seeks innovative proposals for the development of a new class of long duration autonomous undersea vehicles capable of transporting and deploying large payloads over long distances without the need for maintenance or refueling. The Manta Ray program will leverage or develop novel propulsion, sensing, and energy management systems to achieve high reliability and extended endurance across a wide variety of maritime environments. Key aspects of the Manta Ray program are classified. Only proposals addressing the classified aspects of Manta Ray will be eligible for funding under this BAA. DARPA seeks proposals that present a credible path to a rapid demonstration of program objectives.

Anticipated individual awards – Multiple awards are anticipated.

Types of instruments that may be awarded – Procurement contract or other transaction for prototype.

Agency contact o Points of Contact The BAA Coordinator for this effort can be reached at:

HR001119S0040@darpa.mil

DARPA/TTO

ATTN: HR001119S0040

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 mailto:HR001119S0040@darpa.mil

PART II: FULL TEXT OF ANNOUNCEMENT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

This publication constitutes a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as contemplated in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016 and 2 CFR § 200.203. Any resultant award negotiations will follow all pertinent law and regulation, and any negotiations and/or awards for procurement contracts will use procedures under FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, as specified in the BAA.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative underwater vehicle solutions that will enable long duration, large payload capacity missions in ocean environments. DARPA anticipates that successful performers for this program will have recent, relevant, and significant experience and expertise in underwater vehicle design, development, and fielding including long duration navigation with limited communication. The use of a BAA allows a wide range of innovative ideas and concepts, and proposer(s) will have the flexibility to develop a tailored program plan that best advances Manta Ray in accordance with program objectives.

This BAA encompasses a three-phase effort for design, development, and testing of an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) encompassing the following technical areas:

Design and development of a large payload, low propulsive power UUV Design and development of energy management technologies to extend the UUV’s operational profile to long duration operational periods without returning to port or a host vessel

Design and development of Navigation and Command, Control, and Communications (C3) technologies to enable these long duration UUV deployments

DARPA is very interested in non-traditional approaches that reduce risk early in the program. Early, aggressive, and insightful testing in realistic environments is highly desirable.

Potential early failures that burn down risk and lead toward a faster, more capable product are encouraged. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

A. Program Background and Overview

1. Motivation for the DARPA Manta Ray Program

Today’s payload capable UUV operations are generally limited to shorter duration missions due to propeller-driven propulsion powering requirements and a fixed battery capacity. Energy capacity limitations typically couple existing UUVs to manned host platforms, larger UUVs, or ports for periodic recharging. The exception to this limit is the sea glider design which can operate for weeks to months on a sinusoidal depth profile, typically for scientific data collection missions; however, glider-type UUVs are not currently capable of hosting and deploying relevant naval payloads due to their limited maneuverability and payload capacity.

2. Manta Ray Program Goals

The Manta Ray program seeks to develop a new class of long duration, long range payload capable UUVs at an acquisition and lifecycle cost significantly less than current payload-capable UUVs. This new class of UUV will give the combatant commander an amplification of capacity without disrupting current operations by remaining independent of manned vessels and ports once deployed.

DARPA offers the following additional guidance regarding the desired solution space to assist proposers in developing initial Manta Ray concepts and scoping their efforts.

Capabilities of interest include, but are not limited to:

Novel energy management techniques for UUV operations Novel undersea energy harvesting techniques at operationally relevant depths Low-power, high efficiency undersea propulsion systems Novel low-power means of underwater detection and classification of hazards or counter detection threats Mission management approaches for extended durations while accounting for dynamic maritime environments Unique approaches for leveraging existing maritime data sets and exploiting novel maritime parameters for high-efficiency navigation and/or C3 New approaches to mitigate biofouling, corrosion, and other material degradation for long duration missions

DARPA specifically discourages Manta Ray proposals in the following areas:

Evolutionary upgrades to existing technical capabilities that do not focus on Manta Ray technology areas

Development of non-autonomous remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) – controlled and powered from a manned vessel by an operator via an umbilical or using remote control

Significant development of simulation engines, unmanned systems vehicle management and mission management software, or other software development not required to demonstrate Manta Ray capabilities

Significant modification or development of digital communications and networking technologies

Systems requiring rendezvous with manned vessels or ports during long duration deployments

Nuclear power or propulsion systems Systems or experimentation using live animals Interactions with humans that could result in potential injury

Significant use of proprietary or non-government rights software or interfaces

For clarity and consistency, the Manta Ray program will use the following system and component definitions:

Energy Management – a combination of the power required to perform a mission and the power available to perform a mission, whether onboard initially or gained after the mission commences

Large Payload – see classified addendum Long Duration – see classified addendum

Additional details may be found in the classified addendum.

B. Program Description

The primary goal of the Manta Ray program is to open a design space for future UUVs that are capable of both long duration missions and large payload capacity. A secondary goal of the program is to advance key technologies that will benefit other naval designs such as low lifecycle cost UUV operations, long duration energy management techniques, biofouling reduction technologies, and long duration navigational enablers. This section provides an overview of the program structure including technical focus areas, program phase structure, program development plan, systems engineering and program design reviews, program metrics, and Government management approach and operations.

1. Program Technical Focus Areas

The Manta Ray program is comprised of three technical areas (TAs). Performer teams must propose to all three TAs jointly within the same proposal in order to produce fully integrated systems. The functionality of the integrated system will be assessed in demonstrations in maritime environments of increasing complexity. Proposals that do not respond to all three TAs may be deemed non-responsive. The subsections below provide detailed descriptions of each of these areas.

Successful proposals will address the full set of capability metrics required to complete the mission vignette defined in the classified addendum.

a) Technical Area 1 (TA1): Large Payload, Low Propulsive Power UUV Development

This technical area focuses on the development of a new class of long duration autonomous undersea vehicles capable of transporting and deploying large payloads. Performers will develop and integrate the physical implementation of the Manta Ray program, concentrating on the hydrodynamic form factor, propulsion systems, control surfaces, pressure vessels, and payload accommodations. Under this technical area, vehicle operational duration at sea, range, and maintenance hours once wet will be defined. Subject areas falling under TA1 include:

Mission supportability: A frame able to host large payloads with low-power scalable propulsion mechanisms

Maneuverability: Ability to operate in operationally relevant locations and leverage the environment for extending time on station

Payload Integration: Ability to host relevant naval payloads for extended at-sea operations without human presence

b) Technical Area 2 (TA2): Extending UUV Endurance

This technical area focuses on the development of UUV energy systems to enable long duration continuous presence in forward areas without the need for maintenance or refueling using human-present systems, vessels, or ports. Performers will develop and integrate novel methods to extend UUV endurance, concentrating on high efficiency propulsion systems, energy harvesting or recoupment, biofouling reduction, system reliability, and high efficiency energy storage mediums. Under this technical area, energy recoupment rates and energy storage capacity will be defined. Subject areas falling under TA2 include:

Operational Longevity: Ability to reliably perform long duration maritime operations without human intervention including the ability to adapt to internal degradation events such as subsystem failures without a significant loss in mission capability

Energy Management: Optimization of hotel energy loads and high efficiency propulsion combined with novel energy storage mediums, undersea energy harvesting, or energy recoupment techniques to enable sustained operations in austere maritime environments

c) Technical Area 3 (TA3): Navigation and C3

This technical area focuses on the operational behaviors of the Manta Ray platform to enable safe transit to an area of interest, loitering, periodic repositioning, and other necessary behaviors as defined in the classified addendum. The Government envisions that performers would use an open-standard autonomous control architecture capable of achieving Manta Ray mission objectives integrating low energy sensing, decision making, and path planning capabilities.

Under this technical area, the navigation, controllability, and time from communication to action goals will be defined. Subject areas falling under TA3 include:

Global Navigation: Navigate consistent with mission objectives while leveraging the environment to the platform’s advantage while minimizing communication frequency, duration, and bandwidth

Local Controllability: Maneuver within the operational depth column without exceeding safety standoff to surface obstacles or the sea floor

Collision Avoidance: Maneuver and communicate with sufficient safety margin of nearby surface obstacles including vessels

Key aspects of the Manta Ray program are classified. Only proposals addressing the classified aspects of Manta Ray will be eligible for funding under this BAA.

Instructions for requesting the classified addendum are in Section IV.A.2 of this BAA. The classified addendum will include the classified mission vignette presented during the 13 May 2019 Manta Ray Proposers Day.

2. Program Phase Structure

DARPA highly desires a compressed program timeline that balances technical, programmatic, schedule, and cost risks to meet the demands of the final end-to-end Manta Ray demonstration. DARPA challenges proposers to develop an innovative, resourceful, and aggressive program plan that allows proposers to tackle high-risk technical areas early through novel test(s) and /or methodologies. Innovative design-test-analyze-refine-test approaches that may result in early failures by pushing the design and performance envelopes are highly encouraged if they provide leaps in technology readiness and insight or earlier completion of the program objectives. DARPA is providing minimum objectives, go/no-go criteria, and deliverables for each Phase to provide proposers with the latitude to define the details and schedule for their unique programmatic approach.

The program will be separated into three distinct phases. Phase 1 will include an 11 month Preliminary Design Review with a 7 month option period to complete the Critical Design Review. Anticipated follow on Phases 2 and 3 will further develop and test the Manta Ray system. DARPA expects full technical and cost proposals for the Phase 1 base and optional effort, with rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates only and an associated list of assumptions for anticipated follow-on Phases 2 and 3 (this will be for planning purposes only and will not be evaluated as part of the selection decision). Toward the end of Phase 1, DARPA may issue additional guidance to ask Phase 1 performers whose Phase 1 option periods were exercised to provide full proposals to compete for Phase 2 and 3 awards.

Each phase is intended to demonstrate the path to an integrated system with a specific trajectory toward improved capabilities to meet final program requirements. Each program phase will conclude with subsystem (Phase 1) or integrated system (Phases 2 and 3) demonstrations showing that the objective system is predicted to perform to the specifications outlined in the classified addendum. Additionally, independent validation and verification (IV&V) testing will be conducted by a third-party organization, to be identified and retained by DARPA. Performers will be responsible for furnishing test articles, procedures, and protocols to the IV&V contractor.

a) Overview of Phase 1 (Initial 11 month base with a 7 month option)

DARPA anticipates awarding multiple contracts. It is anticipated that Phase 1 will be comprised of an 11 month base with a 7 month option. The 11 month base period of Phase 1 should include, at a minimum, a Systems Requirements Review (SRR), Conceptual Design Review (CoDR), and a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) with a 7 month post-PDR option to complete a Critical Design Review (CDR).

The Phase 1 option period work, schedule, and costs should be based upon a proposer's plan for completion of the CDR. Pending successful achievement of the PDR and funds availability, the option, if exercised, will allow performers to start immediately working towards their CDR. DARPA may choose none, one, or multiple performers to proceed to the Phase 1 option.

The Government anticipates issuing additional instructions requesting full proposals for follow-on Phases 2 and 3 before the end of Phase 1. Phases 2 and 3 updated proposal guidance will only be issued to Phase 1 awardees whose options were exercised. It is envisioned that the updated proposal guidance will include a Phase 2 base period and an optional Phase 3 period.

Proposers are challenged to achieve as much risk reduction as possible towards the DARPA hard elements of the Manta Ray program, such as extended endurance payload-carrying operations and long duration navigation and C3.

At the conclusion of the Phase 1 option, continuation on the program will be contingent upon a system’s ability to meet the required metrics and present a solid development plan for the remainder of the program.

b) Overview of Phase 2 (anticipated follow-on phase)

Phase 2 awards will be based on overall risk posture, maturity of critical subsystems, technical performance demonstrated by the CDR design, proof of concept results achieved in Phase 1 component testing, and funds availability.

See the classified addendum to this BAA for additional details of the anticipated follow on Phase 2 goals and objectives. Note that only a ROM cost is requested for Phase 2.

The duration, program plan, and technical details of Phase 2 are at the discretion of the proposer. Phase 2 should continue to aggressively reduce program risk through early testing. The Government envisions integration testing, including validation of energy management techniques, will drive sufficient risk burn down in anticipation of Phase 3 testing.

Performers have the latitude to propose cost and schedule to achieve the program objectives consistent with the classified addendum and mission vignette. Additional details may be found in the classified addendum. Proposers should propose their own more detailed schedule tailored to their unique UUV design and technology maturation approach. The proposed schedule should include additional key program events such as component tests and integrated system demonstrations. The proposed schedules should also show additional key events that are unique to the proposer's approach. The Government anticipates that the schedules and work breakdown structures (WBS) provided will be, at a minimum, a level 4 breakdown (per MIL- STD-881D) to allow the Government to understand the realism of the proposed work and timelines for completion of the underlying tasks.

c) Overview of Phase 3 (anticipated follow-on phase)

Phase 3 awards will be based on overall Phase 1 and Phase 2 contract performance, technical performance demonstrated by the Phase 2 integrated demonstration, results achieved in Phase 2 subsystem testing, and funds availability.

See the classified addendum to this BAA for additional details of the anticipated follow on Phase 3 goals and objectives Note that only a ROM cost is requested for Phase 3.

The duration, program plan, and technical details of Phase 3 are at the discretion of the proposer. DARPA does not intend to be prescriptive with respect to any build-up or intermediary demonstration tests. Phase 3 will culminate in an end-to-end systems demonstration validating that the Manta Ray concept meets all program intentions and metrics. The Government envisions long duration at-sea testing with minimal human supervision or shore side supervisory logistics.

Additional details may be found in the classified addendum.

Proposers should propose their own more detailed schedule tailored to their unique UUV design and technology maturation approach. The proposed schedule should include additional key program events leading to a final at-sea demonstration. The proposed schedules should also show additional key events that are unique to the proposer's approach. The Government anticipates that the schedules and work breakdown structures provided will be, at a minimum, a level 4 breakdown to allow the Government to understand the realism of the proposed work and timelines for completion of the underlying tasks.

3. Program Development Plan

The component technology development effort will culminate in an applicable capability demonstration. This demonstration will be used as part of an analysis to show capability in an end-to-end engagement. The Manta Ray program seeks technology solutions that meet program objectives as defined in the classified addendum. Performance beyond program objectives providing design margin is sought where no or modest additional risk to cost or schedule is incurred.

The proposal should clearly illustrate the initial technical maturity of the major hardware, software, and/or methods required. It should trace from the initial maturity, through the proposed major testing, demonstration, and/or analysis to the proposer's intended mature technology state.

This traceability should show how the initial technologies connect through each of the maturation steps and intermediary maturation levels to a successful end-to-end Manta Ray demonstration.

Manta Ray will consist of a three-phase program approach, with evaluations and demonstrations at the culmination of each phase. In Phase 1, subsystem requirements will be defined in the CoDR, and each system will then be matured to the PDR level, with demonstration of systems/subsystems to demonstrate both current capabilities and future trajectory to meet Manta Ray future phase metrics.

Subject to execution of a Phase 1 option, each system will then be matured to the CDR level. Subject to execution of Phase 2, each performer will develop a specific system to meet

Manta Ray program metrics and will mature their Phase 1 systems to the integrated testing level.

A Test Readiness Review (TRR) should accompany each major test or demonstration.

Subject to execution of a Phase 3, each performer will see the further maturation of Phase 2 systems to their final levels.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide program management and contractual deliverables including required formats.

Table 1: Program Deliverable Formats

Format Required Format D Document SP Slide Presentation

SPA Slide Presentation (Annotated) M Model

EVMS EVMS or equivalent cost/schedule tool

Table 2: Program Management Deliverables for All Phases

Item # Periodic Deliverable Format Phase(s) Frequency R1 Teleconference Update D, SP 1,2,3 Weekly R2 Monthly Status Report D, EVMS 1,2,3 Monthly R3 Quarterly Progress Report D, SPA 1,2,3 Quarterly R4 Test Reports D, SP 1,2,3 30 days post-test R5 Cost Model to WBS Level

3, including Basis of Estimate to WBS Level 3

D, M 1,2,3 Semi-annually

Table 3: List of Contract Deliverables

Item # Deliverable Frequency 1 Systems Engineering Management Plan Within 90 days of contract award with updates at:

Design Reviews Quarterly

Progress Reviews Phase II Interim

Review(s) Phase III Interim

Review(s) 2 Integrated Master Schedule Monthly 3 Configuration, Performance, and Weight Status Report Quarterly 4 Risk Management Plan updates, including mitigation status Quarterly 5 Component technology development status Quarterly 6 Software development/management plan Quarterly

Item # Deliverable Frequency 7 Data packages and presentations which will include the following:

Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Requirements Specification(s) and associated Requirements

Verification Traceability Matrix Interface Control Document(s) (ICD), including appropriate

Hardware/Software ICDs Design drawings (in Computer-aided design (CAD) format) and schematics Design data package substantiating performance estimates, including basis of analysis (e.g., empirical data, simulation codes, handbook methodologies) and methodology used

Prototype System Development Plan inclusive of component technology development status, prototype system design, and system test plan

Risk Management and Mitigation Plan Test results and analyses for all major risk reduction and component technology development activities

5 working days in advance of reviews including:

SRR/CoDR

PDR

CDR

Quarterly

Progress Reviews

8 Test plans and procedures for major test events including, at a minimum:

Pre-test predictions, test results, and analysis for all major risk reduction activities and demonstrations All models, databases, and algorithms (algorithmic descriptions and software implementations) required to implement a fully representative 6 Degree of Freedom simulation of the performer’s system design

Document that provides the system characteristics that serve as the basis for the Guidance, Navigation, and Control design, simulation, and analysis

Range, range safety, and system safety documentation Mishap and anomaly investigation plan Test Trajectories and Safety Matrix Security Standard Operating Procedures (including Data

Protection and Operational Security (OPSEC) Plan) Transportation, handling, and storage plans

5 working days prior to TRR

9 Raw and processed in-water testing data 30 calendar days after completion of testing

10 Quick look test reports for significant in-water demonstration of the integrated system

Daily within 24 hours

11 Detailed photographic record of the progression of manufacturing, integration, and test activities for the in-water demonstration system

5 working days after completion of testing

Item # Deliverable Frequency 12 Phase 1, 2, and 3 final reports 30 calendar days after end of each Phase

13 Data Accession List that includes the inventory of technical documents generated under the program and their respective data rights

End of each Phase

14 Program Executive Summary and Final Report End of Phase 3 15 All models, databases, and algorithms (algorithmic descriptions and software implementations) required to implement a fully representative 6 Degree of Freedom simulation of the performer’s system design

6 Months

4. Systems Engineering and Program Design Reviews

The Government expects that a rigorous systems engineering process will be used to identify operational integrated system concepts and mature those concepts into a prototype system while identifying areas of high risk to be mitigated over the course of the program effort.

Performers are expected to appropriately tailor their systems engineering processes such that they support tracking design maturation, manage risk, and document prototype system traceability to established requirements. In this context, “system” includes all components and their integration. Per Section IV.B.2.a, “Volume I, Technical and Management Proposal – Management Approach” proposals must address the system engineering processes including the approach for defining sufficient intermediate reviews to periodically assess progress toward system demonstration. The Government seeks innovative approaches to enable a lean and affordable demonstration program that features early system, subsystem, component demonstrations or tests that mitigate key risks and/or substantiate key performance characteristics.

The Performer should develop and submit a Systems Engineering Management Plan as part of their Phase 1 deliverables. This master plan should include, at a minimum, scheduled execution of a SRR, CoDR, PDR, CDR, TRR, and a Final Design Review (FDR) with content and entrance and exit criteria tailored from a recognized industry or military standard (e.g.

“Operation of the Defense Acquisition System”, Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 5000.02) for appropriate application to a technology demonstration program. Proposals should clearly address how these standards will be tailored in the proposed effort. Any tailoring of design review content and criteria must include an assessment of the design maturation of the system including technical risk, and must incorporate demonstrable technology maturation progress and relevant achievements. The Manta Ray program system design review expectations for those aspects of the program are outlined below, followed by specific SRR, PDR, CDR, TRR, and FDR guidance and should be incorporated into the performer’s comprehensive list of tailored design review criteria. The tailored SRR, CoDR, PDR and CDR entrance and exit criteria, as well as the tailored SRR, CoDR, PDR, CDR, TRR, and FDR content checklists will be evaluated to assess the adequacy of the proposed systems engineering processes. In addition, these checklists will need to be approved by the Government prior to the start of the reviews to allow the Government to understand and assess the adequacy of the proposed tailoring of these reviews.

General:

Requirements Development - A complete set of technology demonstration system performance and design requirements is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy (i.e., system, subsystem, and component) for the subject review.

Each requirement must include verification provisions, must include rationale statements, be traceable to a source, and be validated for incorporation into the system baseline.

System interfaces must be identified and documented.

Design Definition - The conceptual design of the operational system architecture is established down to the lowest expected level of the system hierarchy for the subject review, satisfies established requirements, and is sufficiently detailed to enable the next level of design definition. Appropriate design margins are identified and maintained.

Risk Management - Technical risks are identified and assessed (e.g., consequence and likelihood). Mitigation plans are in place along with associated completion criteria.

Technical risks have been updated with results of any mitigation activities.

Technology Maturation – System attributes requiring maturation have been identified and associated analysis, test, and demonstration objectives have been documented. The representative test article design is documented.

SRR and CoDR:

The SRR and CoDR will confirm that mission requirements and metrics have been translated into system-specific technical requirements. The SRR will provide evidence that technologies and systems critical to program success have been identified and demonstrable progress in these areas has been planned, with risks and corresponding mitigation plans identified, and will address the following at a minimum:

Requirements Development – Requirements are complete and preliminary interfaces are defined. Initial verification methods (e.g., analysis, integration, test, demonstration) and complete verification statements explaining process and/or methods are documented.

Requirements must be attributable to a source and traceable to BAA performance metrics.

Conceptual Design – Technology conceptual design is complete and the approach is shown to be feasible through initial analysis. A pathway to the preliminary design is identified.

Software Development –A software development plan, including verification and validation approach, is complete.

Trade Studies – The results of any trade studies completed to validate design approach are presented.

Cost – Initial cost estimates are documented and show a feasible path to a Bill of Materials (BOM) cost that meets cost metrics.

Technology Development – Initial results of early proof-of-concept and risk mitigation activities are reflected in system requirements development and design definition.

PDR:

A Preliminary Design Review will consist of the initial design in terms of design requirements for each subsystem and any relevant configurations. The PDR will identify functions, performance, and interface requirements that pertain to any components at the subsystem level or below, and will address the following at a minimum:

Requirements Development – Interface and subsystem requirements are complete. Initial verification methods (e.g., Analysis, Integration, Test, and Demonstration) are identified and external interfaces are documented. Subsystem verification methods and statements are documented. Requirements must be traceable to concepts that meet BAA performance metrics. External interfaces are documented. Internal system interfaces between major subsystems are documented with requirements allocated to each side of the interface.

Design Definition – Assess the allocated design documented in subsystem requirements.

Manta Ray preliminary design is complete to the subsystem / configuration item level, closes around documented requirements, adequately demonstrates that performance achieves minimum and maximum threshold ranges, and subsystems meet both program metrics and operational criteria of proposed mission vignette (see classified addendum).

Energy Management – Specifically assess the power and energy requirements for completing the mission within context of the co-design of energy harvesting, energy storage, hull, and propulsion mechanisms.

Software Development – A development plan with processes and metrics to measure progress is complete. Adequately demonstrate through simulation or testing that software performance achieves minimum program metrics and operational criteria while accounting for operational and environmental uncertainty to complete proposed missions.

Demonstrate software scalability in meeting future risks and metrics.

Risk Management – Risks must include all design risks. High risks are mitigated to an acceptable level.

Technology Maturation - Desired technology maturation can be achieved via planned development within program budget and schedule. Test plans define objectives and expected results that will validate design proof-of-concept.

Cost – Revised system cost based on preliminary design is documented and within established cost metrics.

CDR:

The Critical Design Review will be used to determine if the system design documentation is sufficient to initiate system production. It will include reviews of hardware and software interfaces, as well as reviews of test plans, and will address the following at a minimum:

Requirements Development – All requirements are complete. Component verification methods and statements for each requirement are established. Verification approach for each requirement has been established. Traceability of requirements across all levels the system hierarchy must be documented. All interface requirements are documented, including hardware-to-software interfaces and internal interfaces between subsystems.

Design Definition – Critical designs are complete to the component level and achieve compliance with all associated requirements.

Technology Maturation – Initial testing results support proceeding with planned conditions representative of evaluation mission.

Cost – Final design costs are documented and within cost metrics.

TRR:

The Test Readiness Review will assess test objectives, procedures, and resources testing coordination. The TRR will determine the completeness of the test procedures to be applied in the proposed system demonstration(s), as well as their compliance with previously planned test outlines and descriptions, and will be captured in test plans provided for Government review.

The TRR should be conducted substantially ahead of the demonstration to allow adjustments based on Government feedback. Demonstration unit design and instrumentation for recording data associated with major performance requirements should be reviewed. Limitations of the test should be discussed and possible mitigations considered.

Prior to the TRR, the performer should confirm the following criteria:

All hardware is available or will be delivered in time with reasonable margin for system integration and demonstration;

All firmware/software is in final review / simulation and under configuration control;

The test article(s) and the procedures and plans for their use have been submitted to the safety entity responsible for evaluating the test safety with sufficient lead time;

Training material is complete for personnel to be involved in the testing concerning the objectives of the test(s) and the jobs personnel are responsible for accomplishing;

Resources (people, equipment, and materials) needed to accomplish the testing are available and ready for the testing;

The equipment, facilities, and ranges (if applicable) are evaluated as ready for test; and Documentation of evaluations, assessments, plans, procedures, training, and other factors applicable to the tests are available for Government review.

FDR:

The Final Design Review will be used primarily as an opportunity to confirm design decisions and review alignment with the program vision and Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP). Additionally, the Final Design Review will verify any planned changes or developments required before the completion of the Manta Ray program. The FDR will also serve as an opportunity to discuss projected risks and mitigation strategies in future development beyond the Manta Ray program.

5. Program Metrics

Program success will be evaluated against a set of high-level mission metrics and mission vignette found in the classified addendum. It is expected that performers will use these metrics and vignette to derive and track functional and physical requirements for subsystem development.

a) Metrics Overview

Large Payload, Low Propulsive Power UUV Development o Operational duration at sea: The Manta Ray system is expected to be capable of sustained operations at sea without human touch points (e.g., vessel rendezvous, port call, etc.). Proposals should reflect the ability of the system to operate in these environments, as demonstrations will be conducted in these environments to show system maturity. The Phase 3 demonstration may be abbreviated less than the specified operational duration if the Performer demonstrates through reasonable extrapolation of at-sea data that the metric is achievable after a considerable yet reasonable test period.

o Vehicle range: Ranges must consider varying depths and vessel traffic that may inhibit full use of the vessel’s depth capabilities.

o Maintenance hours once wet: Manta Ray emphasizes the need to remove human touch points from underway UUVs. Proposers should design the system such that operations may continue without human-involved maintenance once the vessel deploys in the water.

Extending UUV Endurance o Energy recoupment: The Manta Ray system is intended to find, harvest, or otherwise recoup usable energy to extend its operational time consistent with the intended operational duration at sea.

o Energy storage: see classified addendum Navigation and C3 o Navigate a relevant mission set: Manta Ray is expected to be capable of operating a relevant mission set consistent with the mission vignette of the classified addendum.

o Maneuver without violating depth limitations: Safely operate within the design limitations of depth including a shallow depth stand-off to overhead vessels.

o Bottoming or anchoring for hibernation: Manta Ray is expected to operate consistent with the mission vignette of the classified addendum.

o Time from bell-ring to payload release: The time from an operational signal being received to releasing a payload consistent with the mission vignette of the classified addendum.

o Time from bell-ring to communication: The time from an operational signal being received to communicating consistent with the mission vignette of the classified addendum.

6. Government Management Approach and Operations

The Government recognizes that a streamlined, collaborative management approach is essential to achieving the program technical, cost, and schedule objectives. The Government

Program Office is comprised of a core technical and programmatic team, which may be augmented with Government-led Integrated Product Teams (IPT) for targeted technical disciplines, for example, naval architecture, propulsion, energy management, payload integration, test safety, etc. The performers will interface with the Government team via coordination meetings at the technical level, status meetings at the management level and quarterly program management reviews. The proposers are asked to provide a management approach to allow for collaboration with the Government team to ensure a successful program.

II. Award Information

A. General Award Information

Multiple awards are anticipated. The amount of resources made available under this BAA will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The Government reserves the right to select for negotiation all, some, one, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and to make awards without discussions with proposers. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined to be necessary. If warranted, portions of resulting awards may be segregated into pre-priced options. Additionally, DARPA reserves the right to accept proposals in their entirety or to select only portions of proposals for award. In the event that DARPA desires to award only portions of a proposal, negotiations may be opened with that proposer. The Government reserves the right to fund proposals in phases with options for continued work, as applicable.

The Government reserves the right to request any additional, necessary documentation once it makes the award instrument determination. Such additional information may include but is not limited to Representations and Certifications (see Section VI.B.4, “Representations and Certifications”). The Government reserves the right to remove proposals from award consideration, should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms, conditions, and/or cost/price within a reasonable time, or the proposer fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner. Proposals identified for negotiation may result in a procurement contract, or other transaction, depending upon the nature of the work proposed, the required degree of interaction between parties, whether or not the research is classified as Fundamental Research, and other factors.

Proposers looking for innovative, commercial-like contractual arrangements are encouraged to consider requesting Other Transactions. To understand the flexibility and options associated with Other Transactions, consult http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions.

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 2371b(f), the Government may award a follow-on production contract or Other Transaction (OT) for any OT awarded under this BAA if: (1) that participant in the OT, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT, successfully completed the entire prototype project provided for in the OT, as modified; and (2) the OT provides for the http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/contract-management#OtherTransactions award of a follow-on production contract or OT to the participant, or a recognized successor in interest to the OT.

In all cases, the Government contracting officer shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type, regardless of instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions, as necessary, if it determines that the research resulting from the proposed effort will present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Any award resulting from such a determination will include a requirement for DARPA permission before publishing any information or results on the program. For more information on publication restrictions, see the section below on Fundamental Research.

B. Fundamental Research

It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 defines fundamental research as follows:

‘Fundamental research’ means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons.

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government expects that program goals as described herein either cannot be met by proposers intending to perform fundamental research or the proposed research is anticipated to present a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies that are unique and critical to defense. Therefore, the Government anticipates restrictions on the resultant research that will require the awardee to seek DARPA permission before publishing any information or results relative to the program.

Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to determine whether the proposed research shall be considered fundamental and to select the award instrument type. Appropriate language will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate. This language can be found at http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research to be performed by a potential awardee is non-fundamental research, its proposed subawardee’s effort may be fundamental research. It is also possible that the research performed by a potential awardee is fundamental research while its proposed subawardee’s effort may be non-fundamental research. In all cases, it is the potential awardee’s responsibility to explain in its proposal which proposed efforts are fundamental research and why the proposed efforts should be considered fundamental research.

http://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/additional-baa

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants

All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit a proposal that shall be considered by DARPA.

1. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government Entities

a) FFRDCs FFRDCs are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions. (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization, that (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. These conditions are a requirement for FFRDCs proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

All proposers are expected to address transition; transition is part of the evaluation criteria in Section V.A. However, given their special status, FFRDCs should describe how and when a proposed technology/system will transition to which Non-FFRDC organization(s).

b) Government Entities Government Entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations. Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant, establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations. This information is required for Government Entities proposing to be awardees or subawardees.

c) Authority and Eligibility

At the present time, DARPA does not consider 15 U.S.C. § 3710a to be sufficient legal authority to show eligibility. While 10 U.S.C.§ 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility. DARPA will consider FFRDC and Government entity eligibility submissions on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

2. Non-U.S. Organizations and/or Individuals

Non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances. Given the security requirements and applicable ITAR restrictions it is not anticipated that non-U.S. organizations and/or individuals will be able to participate in this effort.

3. Classified Proposals

For classified proposals, applicants will ensure all industrial, personnel, and information systems processing security requirements are in place prior to proposal submission and at the appropriate level (e.g., Facility Clearance Level (FCL), Automated Information Security (AIS), Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any Foreign Ownership Control and Influence (FOCI) issues are mitigated prior to submission. Additional information on these subjects can be found at http://www.dss.mil.

B. Organizational Conflicts of Interest

FAR 9.5 Requirements In accordance with FAR 9.5, proposers are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the proposer’s organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the proposer is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the BAA.